Analysis and Evaluation of Amasya City Centre as a Tourist...

1

International Journal of Social Science and Technology Vol. 3 No. 6 October 2018

Analysis and Evaluation of Amasya City Centre as a Tourist

Friendly Destination

Okan Murat DEDE a*, Ali Kemal ARKUNb aDepartment of City and Regional Planning, Amasya University, Amasya, Turkey

Mail: [email protected], [email protected] Tel: +90 (536) 474 54 53

bMinistry of Family, Labor and Social Services, Ankara. Mail: [email protected],

Tel: +90 (533) 259 31 13

Abstract

Tourism is not only one of the most notable sectors in the world, but also the motor force of

development of many regions, cities and villages. Touristic destinations instead of nations

have become the focal points of tourism development initiatives. This article identifies the

interrelationship between international tourists’ perceptions and the “tourist friendly

destination” concept. Demand side, supply side of tourism and additionally, urban condition,

urban quality and urban standards of the destination influence the tourist friendly destination

concept. Cultural and historical tourism destinations present a more definite and clear case.

Therefore, this study mainly focuses of Amasya, which is a significant cultural and historical

tourism destination, in Turkey. This study aims to analyse Amasya city centre as a potential

tourist friend destination. Hence, a questionnaire survey was developed consisting of some

questions that inquire about the tourist friendly destination concept. The data collected from

the questionnaires were statistically analysed. The findings yielded several strategies in order

to improve tourist friendly tourism.

Keywords: Tourism, Tourist friendly destination; Cultural tourism; Locational

characteristics; Amasya city centre

*Corresponding author. Assistant Prof. Dr. Okan Murat DEDE, Dept. of City and Regional Planning, Faculty of

Architecture, Amasya, Turkey, e-mail: [email protected], or [email protected] Tel: +90 (536) 474

54 53, Fax: +90 (358) 250 00 47

Postal address: Amasya University, Faculty of Architecture, 05100 Amasya/TURKEY. (Amasya Üniversitesi,

Mimarlık Fakültesi, 05100 Amasya/TÜRKİYE)

2

International Journal of Social Science and Technology ISSN: 2415-6566 www.ijsstr.com

1. Introduction

Tourism is one of the most important industries in the world as it is the case in

Turkey. Tourism brings in large amounts of income to local economies in the form of

payment for goods and services needed by tourists. According to the 2017 Report of WTTC

(World Travel and Tourism Council), the share of tourism sector will be about 10% of total

national GDP in Turkey (TURFED Tourism Report, 2017).

Globalisation has led to various changes in the tourism sector, as it has in most

sectors. Regional and destination marketing instead of national marketing activities have

become popular (Tosun & Bilim, 2004). New plans and strategies are concentrated on direct

marketing of tourist destinations (Dore &Crouch,2002). In this respect, the tourist friendly

destination concept has emerged, reflecting the fading relevancy of nations as tourist

destinations.

The tourist friendly destination concept has two components – demandrelated and

supply related factors. The demand side encompasses tourist behaviours and attitudes, the

supply side relates to the condition and features of the supply side. Additionally, locational

and urban characteristics and standards, referred to as the urban factor, are important when

considering tourism activities in city centres. This is more so the case in city centres, which

are cultural tourism destinations. Classification as a tourist friendly destination is a key

tourism management and branding issue in today's tourism industry. Some studies have been

carried out on the tourist friendly destination and urban concept (Bennett, 1998;

Reutsche2006; Anuar et al. 2012a;Anuar et al. 2012b,Anuar et al. 2012c, AbdJalil et al. 2013;

Luttenberger, 2013). Although the tourist friendly destination concept has been considered,

there is no research evaluating international tourists’ perceptions and opinions of a historic

city centres.

Amasya, whose history dates back nearly 7500 years, has significant tourism potential

for Turkey. Amasya has been home to many civilizations, including the Hittites, Phrygians,

Cimmerians, Scythians, Medes, Mitridates, Romans, Byzantines, Danişments, Ilkhanians,

Seljuks, Ottomans and Turks (Menc, 2000). It is regarded as one of the most important

cultural and educational centres of the Ottoman Empire. Amasya, with its historical Yaliboyu

District, is one of the most picturesque cities in Anatolia. It has been selected as a case study

because of its historical and cultural features and potential to be a successful tourist

destination.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the potential of Amasya city centre as a tourist

friendly destination. The tourist friendly potential of Amasya city centre is examined in

terms of supply and demand sides; locational and urban characteristics of the city are an

important factor as well. To evaluate the demand side, a questionnaire was designed with

regard to the tourist friendly destination concept developed from the reviewed literature. This

study depends on the questionnaire applied to foreign tourists and tourism establishments in

the year 2014. In order to eliminate bias due to nationalist emotions, the questionnaire was

distribute donly to international tourists who visited Amasya city centre and planned to spend

at least one night in Amasya city centre. In order to evaluate the supply side, semi-structured

interviews were conducted with owners or managers of touristic facilities. The questionnaire

distributed to international tourists must be evaluated according to development of the

3


research. The main framework was developed through the demand side as the research

developed.

The study has five sections. First, it reviews the existing literature relevant to the

tourist friendly destination concept and introduces the factors that influence this concept.

Then, Amasya city centre is described as a case study area. This is followed by a description

of the research method and procedures used in the study. Next, the results and findings are

discussed and summarized. The study concludes with a summary of the study, contributions,

discussion, and a set of recommendations for future research.

2. Tourist Friendly Destination Concept

The tourist friendly destination concept was firstly described in 2012 (Anuar et

al.2012a,b). According to Anuar et al. (2012b),“the tourist friendly destination is a concept,

which satisfies the tourists through utilization and the relationship between elements of

activity, space and product without any interruption and difficulties starting from the resident

to the preferred of tourism destination”. Anuar et al. (2012a, b) grouped factors for defining a

place as a tourist friendly destination. These factors are; space, activity and product. Space is

related with infrastructure, facilities, accommodation; activity is the first starting point of

tourist friendly destination; product is related with nature, manmade structures and major

touristic events.

The tourist friendly destination concept is correlated with the attractiveness and

competitiveness of a tourism destination. Vangesayi (2003) proposed a conceptual model

about competitiveness and attractiveness. According to the conceptual model, the resources

and supporting services of the destination combined with physical and social characteristics

of a destination indicates the level of competitiveness and attractiveness. Finally, this leads to

an image of destination with an organizational performance that maintains the tourist

satisfaction (Vangesayi,2003).

Crompton and Love (1995)claim that quality and satisfaction are the key factors for

shaping the tourism potential of a destination. Quality concerns the supply side, whereas

satisfaction relates to the demand side. Baker and Crompton (2000) state that qualified

performance in facility provision, programming and service give way to higher satisfaction

levels among visitors.

A study by Ritchie and Crouch (2000) suggests that the factors effecting destination

competitiveness and sustainability can be considered hierarchically. The study helps to reveal

the supply factors of tourism which play a role in shaping a place as atourist friendly

destination. According to Ritchie and Crouch, local characteristics are least influential while

national and more general characteristics are most influential.

Beerli and Martin (2004) define a number of elements determining the perceived

tourist destination image. These elements are: natural resources, condition of general

infrastructure (health, transportation, quality of roads and airports etc.), tourist infrastructure

(condition of hotels, restaurants, tourist centres, network of tourist information etc.),

existence of touristic leisure and recreation facilities, existence of culture, history and art,

political and economic factors, natural environment, cleanliness, beauty of town, air and

noise pollution, social environment (hospitality, life quality, language barriers) and

4


atmosphere of the place (exotic, mystic, relaxing, attractive etc.) In addition to this, Beerli

and Martin (2004) indicate that choice of a tourism location depends on assessment of a

perceived image. Their study is primarily concerned with the behavioural and psychological

aspects of the tourist friendly concept.

On the other hand, depending on the destination concept, space and spatial

characteristics are vital elements concerning the tourism concept especially in urban areas.

According to Reutsche (2006), there are several key elements that enhance the tourist

friendliness in urban areas, such as:location of activities including cultural facilities, sports

facilities, amusement facilities, leisure setting including physical characteristics (street

pattern, interesting buildings etc.) and socio cultural features (cultural heritage, language,

friendliness, security etc.), secondary elements including accommodation, shopping and

additional elements including accessibility, transportation and tourist information.

3. Amasya City as a Destination for Tourists

Amasya is situated between the Black Sea and Centre Anatolia Regions in Turkey.

Amasya lies in a beautiful narrow river valley, bounded by the almost vertical cliffs and high

peaks of the Canik and Pontus mountains. Despite the mountainous location, it is not far

above sea level. This makes its climate more temperate. Amasya is in Central Black Sea

Region, with Samsun bordering to the north, Tokat to the east, Yozgat to the south and

Corumto the west (Figure1). The surface area of the province is 5690 km2 and the city centre

altitude is approximately 412 m. Amasya is located on the North Anatolian fault lines, the

primary earthquake prone zone of Anatolia.

Figure 1. Location of Amasya (Adapted from Google Maps)

According to Turkish Institute of Statistics (TUIK) Data from 2013, the population of

Amasya province is 322,000 and the population of Amasya city centre is about 100,000

(Anonymous, 2013). The birth rate of Amasya is low, so its population has been increasing

slowly.

5


Amasya is one of the oldest settlements in Anatolia; its history goes back more than

7,500 years. The territory has hosted Hitit, Phrygian, Kimmer, Lydian, Persian, Asurian,

Pontic, Roman, Byzantine, Danismend, Mongolian, Selcuk, Ilhanli and Ottoman civilizations.

Amasya’s history spans the Prehistoric Period, Hellenistic Period, Roman-Byzantine Period,

Seljuk Period, Ottoman Period and the Turkish Republic Period (Menc, 2000). .

Amasya is home to an array of famous tourist attractions. Amasya Historic City

Centre is the principal tourist attraction for visitors. The most famous attractions include

Amasya Castle, the King Rock Tombs and traditional Ottoman mosques and mansions

(Amasya Houses). Amasya also offers a number of museums (The Archaeological Museum

of Amasya, Hazeranlar Mansion, Sehzadeler (Prince) Museum, Serefeddin Sabuncuoğlu

Medicine Museum, Museum of Amasya National Battle, Model Amasya Museum, Alpaslan

Museum). In addition, Amasya is home tothe Yesilirmak River Promenade, Ottoman-era

inns, public baths, bazaars, thermal springs, ornithology areas, madrasah and theology

schools, Sultan IIthBayezidKulliye, Haliliye Theology School, Kapi Aga Theology School),

Ferhat Water Canal, fountains and festivals(Menc, 2000).

The Yeşilirmakriver coupled with the city’s historical and cultural treasures create a

unique identity for Amasya. Amasya’s historic city centre has a huge tourism potential with

its natural and man-madebeauty.

The historic centre of Amasya is divided in two by the Yesilirmakriver. Most of the

historical buildings and monuments are situated in the city centre. A majority of sites in the

city’s southern districts were damaged or destroyed by a huge fire in 1913 and an earthquake

in1946 (Menc, 2000).

The north section,which was not heavily affected by disasters, is the most picturesque

and attractive space in the historic city centre. It comprises three districts: Hatuniye

Neighbourhood or Yaliboyu District on the Yeşilirmak river shore (19th century), the Rock

Tombs of the Pontic Kings(300 BC to 200 BC), which were carved into the limestone rocks

on the skirt of Harsena Mountain and the Castle at the top of Harsena Mountain.

The Yaliboyu District, where rows of half-timbered traditional Ottoman (Yaliboyu)

houses, mosques, fountains, hamams and bridges were constructed on the Yeşilirmak River

in 19thcentury, is the main tourist spot. Most of the Yaliboyu Houses have been restored or

reconstructed, and most of them are used as tourist facilities, such as hotels, cafes,

restaurants, pubs, museums, and cultural institutions. Apart from tourist facilities, there are

some residential houses and association offices, a grocery store and mini bazaar. The

Yaliboyu district hold 30 % of the total bed capacity of Amasya. These structures and

features lend the Yaliboyu District unique historical and cultural characteristics.

After the 1970’s rapid, heavy urbanization and ill-advised urban policies took a toll on

urban form and structure in Amasya. Despite this,the historical “Yaliboyu district” remains

an opportunity for Amasya to show its cultural and historical background to incoming

tourists. Amasya city centre, including Yaliboyu, is shown in Figure 2.

6


Figure 2. Amasya Historic City Centre

Although Amasya is a well-known touristic destination and has a touristic image, it

hasn’t reached deserved levels of international overnight guests. Despite its cultural and

historical treasures, Amasya falls below its neighbour provinces in terms of overnight stays

over the last five years on average (Table1).

The data presented in Table 1 reveal that incoming international tourists to Amasya do

not prefer to stay in Amasya for long. International tourists generally stay a few days and

travel to the Black Sea Region or the ancient Hitite settlements of Yozgat and Corum.

Although these data are at the province level, it is clear that international tourists

prefer to stay in Amasya city centre over its counties (administration units within Amasya

Province) because 77.3 % of the accommodation facilities and 70.8 %of the total beds

available to tourists were in Amasya city centre as of 2013. Table 2 shows that about 70-75 %

of the tourism potential of the province falls in Amasya city.

Table 1. Incoming tourists and average overnight staynumbers of Amasya and its Neighbour Provinces from 2009 to 2013 (TUIK Statistics)

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2009-2013

average of

touristarrivals

Annual

average

of

overnight

stay

2009-2013 annual

average of total

overnight stay

AMASYA 28328 (2.39)

20534 (8.46)

32276 (6.17)

26797 (7.09)

39736 (6.48)

29534 6.12 180750

Samsun 56145 (14.56)

75860 (11.41)

81169 (13.15)

70207 (13.66)

137182 (14.81)

84118 13.52 1137275

Çorum 23432 (16.04)

26341 (11.88)

35863 (14.97)

27171 (15.05)

38172 (10.95)

30196 13.78 416100

Tokat 29778 (11.31)

18684 (13.43)

12888 (12.49)

13574 (14.81)

18594 (10.91)

18703 12.59 235470

Yozgat 42743 (17.63)

36663 (14.95)

49094 (12.30)

32435 (16.86)

47554 (12.17)

41638 14.78 615400

7


Table 2. Distribution of Accommodation Facilities and Beds in Amasya Province.

Number of touristic

accommodation facility

Number of Beds

Amasya City Centre 44 (77.3 %) 1633 (70.8 %)

Cou

nti

es

of

Am

asy

a Merzifon 4 (7 %) 262 (11.4 %)

Suluova 2 (3.5 %) 66 ( 3 %) Gümüşhacıköy 1(1.7 %) 27 (1.2 %) Hamamözü 4 (7 %) 263 (11.4 %) Taşova 2 (3.5 %) 55 (2.2 %)

Total 57 (100 %) 2306

According to the Amasya Culture and Tourism Directorate, there are 40

accommodation establishments in Amasya city centre – 13 of them are licensed by the

Ministry of Culture and Tourism and 28 are licensed by the Amasya Municipality. In 2013,

there were 707 total accommodation rooms/units across 40 accommodation establishments,

with a bedding capacity of 1689 (Table 3). Not all of Amasya’s tourist visitors require paid

accommodation. Some are day visitors who will return home or travel to another city at the

end of the day. Others stay with friends or relatives.

Table 3. Accommodation establishments in the city centre in 2013

ACCOMMODATION ESTABLISHMENTS LICENCES IN THE CITY CENTRE

ESTABLISHMENTS ROOMS UNITS

BEDS

Ministry Licenced Accommodation Establishments

13 386 713

Municipality Licenced Accommodation Establishments

28 401 976

Total 40 707 1689

According to the latest figures released by Amasya Culture and Tourism Directorate,

the international tourists who visited Amasya were mostly from Germany, Greece, Poland,

France and the USA. The number of visitors from Asia also increased considerably,

indicating that tourism is developing as an industry.

4. Methodology

This study included both quantitative research methods in the form of a questionnaire

distributed to international tourists, and qualitative methods in the form of semi-structured

interviews with owners or managers of touristic facilities. The survey was conducted between

May and September 2014 during peak tourist season.

The questionnaire was designed to collect factual data to assess the opinions and

perceptions of international tourists regarding the tourist friendly destination concept, and to

gather their feedback.

The target respondents were only international tourists who stayed at the touristic

facilities in Amasya city centre for at least one night. This restriction was implemented

because international tourists who stay at least one night have better opportunity to develop

8


perceptions and opinions about the city centre, and may judge the city objectively better than

the host country’s citizens.

The questionnaire has close end edquestions of three varieties: yes/no questions,

scaled questions, and multiple choice questions. The Likert Scale, a descriptive method,

isused in scaled questions because it is the most widely used approach for measuring either a

positive or negative response to a statement. Respondents were required to rate these

questions using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree,

3=neither disagree nor agree, 4= agree, 5=strongly agree.

The questionnaire was divided into three parts. The first part deals with the

respondents’ demographic information, duration of respondents’ stay and reason of

respondents’ visit. The second parts consists of factors related with the tourist friendly

destination concept. These factors are:safety of the destination, accessibility to the

destination, cleanliness of the destination, climatic conditions, diversity of cultural / historical

facilities, quality of the accommodation, quality of infrastructure, conditions of the local

traffic, availability of local transportation services, local cuisine offerings (food), shopping

opportunities, friendliness of the local people, night life and entertainment, availability of

recreational activities and cultural and other events. The third part deals with the appealing

and repelling indicators (factors) of the tourist friendly destination concept.

The questionnaires were designed only in English. The respondents were notified with

a cover letter that the questionnaire is anonymous and used only for academic purposes. The

questionnaire is the core source of the research evaluating the demand side.

The semi-structured interview was chosen as an appropriate methodology to address

the supply side of the tourist friendly destination concept. The semi-structured interviews

were conducted with 16 touristic facility owners or managers during May and August 2014.

This semi-structured interview focused on adequacy of the personnel, language capability,

existence of some necessary facilities such as air conditioning, a power supply unit, a water

reservoir, room service, existence of technical personnel and the room rates.

5. Data Analysis

The results are presented in two parts: the results of the questionnaire, and the results

of the semi-structured interview.

5.1. Questionnaire Results

A total of 180 questionnaires were disturbed to the international tourists at check-in

time and returned to the hotels’ and motels’ reception at checkout time. One-hundred

completed questionnaires were collected. This represents a response (return) rate of 56%,

which is reasonable for this type of study.

With regard to the profile of the international tourist surveyed, the gender distribution

of the respondents was quite even, with females representing 49% of respondents and males

representing 51% of respondents. 58% were between 25 and 44 years of age. Most of the

respondents (65 %) were married. In terms of the region of origin, 64% of the respondents

were from European countries, 23% were from East Asian countries, 5% were from

Australia, 5% were from West Asian countries and 3% were from North American countries.

9


Most of the respondents (86%) had visited Amasya before. 14 % of respondents were on their

first trip to Amasya.

The questionnaire asked how many nights the respondent stayed during their visit.

The majority of the respondents (58%) stayed one night, 38 % of respondents stayed two

nights, and only 4% of the respondents stayed three or more nights. The survey also asked the

respondents their reasons for visiting Amasya. The respondents could select more than one

choice. Most of the respondents (78 %) indicated that their reason for visiting was cultural

heritage of Amasya, 49% visited for rest and relaxation, 16% visited for fun, 6% visited for

the educational reasons, and 7% of the respondents indicate that they came with a package

tour and have no specific reason to visit Amasya.

The respondents were asked to indicate their opinions on the general image of

Amasya according to a Likert scale. Most of the respondents (75%) had a positive opinion on

Amasya. 80% of respondents indicated that the staff they encountered were friendly and 84%

of respondents indicated that Amasya city centre has a unique image. More than half of the

respondents (61%) thought that Amasya city centre respects the natural environment.

The respondents were asked to evaluate fifteen factors according to how important they are

when choosing any kind of destination and again when evaluating Amasya city centre using a

5-point Likert scale. Table 3 indicates the factors that have the highest impact on being a

tourist friendly destination. According to the respondents, the most important factors are the

diversity of cultural and historical attractions, safety of the destination, friendliness of the

local people, quality of the accommodation and the cleanliness of the destination. These

results are also valid for Amasya city centre. Alternatively, night life, availability of

recreational services, possibilities for shopping were not important factors.

The five factors that international tourists found most attractive about Amasya city

centre were: historical street pattern (59), interesting buildings (63), cultural heritage (63),

ancient monuments and statues (49) and kindness of the local people (32). The factors that

they disliked most were: noise (38), language barriers (34), traffic congestion and parking

(30), lack of tourist information services (12) and environmental pollution (7). The

respondents negatively commented in particular on traffic congestion in the historical city

centre, the bad smell coming from the Yesilirmak River and the loud music coming from

pubs and nightclubs.

The respondents were asked to rate the general quality of Amasya city centre on a

five-point Likert scale (ranging from poor to excellent) More than half of respondents, 55%,

evaluated the general quality of Amasya city centre as excellent while 38% of respondents

evaluated it as very good. 93% of respondents evaluated it as good, 7% evaluated it as

medium and no one evaluated as poor.

10


Table 4. Response rates to the factors that affect tourist friendliness of a destination

The respondents were asked to rate the general quality of Amasya city centre on a

five-point Likert scale (ranging from poor to excellent). 16.1 % of the respondents evaluate

the general quality of Amasya city centre as excellent while 43 % evaluate as very good and

32.3 % evaluate as good and 9% evaluate as medium and no one was evaluate as poor.

As final, 91.6 % of respondent tourists define Amasya as tourist friendly while 8,4 %

of the respondents did not. The respondent tourists who selected no option were mostly

disturbed by loud music near their rooms, communication problems, lack of pedestrian roads

and lack of tourist information services.

There are also some interesting results derived from the inquiry. About 6 out of 8

tourists who had responded that Amasya cannot be considered as tourist friendly destination

were the people who came to Amasya more than once. 2 out of 8 tourists were visiting

Amasya for the first time.

5.2. Results of the Interviews with hotels (Supply Side)

The interview with hotels was a very short and descriptive one to learn their service

quality. Especially, Service quality of an accommodation facility proportionally affects the

tourist friendliness of a destination.

Face to face Interviews with accommodation facility managers were conducted to

develop an in-depth understanding of service quality which composed of the existence of air

conditioning, water storage, room service, technician etc.

Factors that affect tourist friendliness of a destination

(number of respondents)

Response rate Percentage of

respondents who selected important or very important when choosing

any tourist destination

Response rate Percentage of

respondents who selected important or very important when

choosing Amasya city centre

1. Safety in the destination (96) 82 % 74 % 2. Accessibility to the destination (96) 68 % 69 % 3. Cleanliness of the destination (99) 76 % 78 % 4. Climatic conditions (97) 52 % 53 % 5. Diversification of cultural historical amenities(99) 93 % 92 % 6. Quality of the accommodation (95) 75 % 82 % 7. Quality of infrastructure (91) 64 % 68 % 8. Conditions of the local traffic (96) 38 % 32 % 9. Possibility of local transportation (98) 58 % 41 % 10. The offer of local cuisine (food) (96) 77 % 73 % 11. Possibilities for shopping (100) 21 % 27 % 12. Friendliness of the local people (96) 88 % 84 % 13. Night life and entertainment (97) 22 % 20 % 14. Availability of recreational activities (93) 29 % 30 % 15. Offer of cultural and other events (95) 71 % 67 %

11


According to the results, all facilities have air conditioning, 75 % of the facilities have

water storage, half of them have an electric generator, 65% of the hotels have its own

technicians. They have indicated the most important problem as a language problem, lack of

classified personnel who knows language. Room rate ranges from 70 to 120 Turkish Liras

(30-55 USD) per night for single including standard breakfast, that can be considered as

cheaper than accommodation facilities at seaside.

5.3. Statistical Analyses of the Questionanaire (Demand Side)

In this section, the data obtained from survey were statistically analysed and the results were

discussed. Firstly, factoranalys is was conducted. Table 4 shows the correlation matrix.

According to this table, it is obvious that all factors relating the tourist destination are highly

correlated since all the correlation coefficients are above 0.3 (poor correlation). An important

aspect in factor analysis includes KMO & Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Table 5 shows the

KMO and Bartlett’s Test. According to this table, adequacy of sampling (0.926) is

satisfactory for the analysis. In addition, Significance level is below 0.05, which reflects that

the data chosen for the analysis is appropriate.

Table 5. Correlation Matrix

12


Table 6. KMO & Bartlett’s Test Kaiser-Meyer-OlkinMeasure of SamplingAdequacy.

.926

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 2824.718

df 105

Sig. .000

In the statistical tests, extraction method was also evaluated. According to

Communalities, table principal components were extracted (Table 6). Moreover, the total

variance was explained. According to Table 7, component 1 explains the variance at most.

All the remaining components explain the variance relatively lower compared to the first

component. This might be interpreted that “Accessibility to destination” is more significant

than the other factors affecting tourist destination.

The scree plot shows that the first component is very significant in terms of its eigen

value (Figure 3). Since the secree plot gets an elbow shape after the first component, the

remaining components are relatively insignificant when compared to the first component. If

the eigen value is above 1, this means that the majority of the data is explained by the

component which has an eigen value higher than 1. According to this, it is clear that

component 1 has the highest eigen value, which explains the variance most. This might be

interpreted that “Accessibility to destination” is the most important factor in explaining the

variance.

13


Table 7. Communalities and Total Variance Explained

Initial Extraction Safety in thedestination 1.000 .872 Accessibility tothedestination 1.000 .921 Cleanliness of thedestination 1.000 .906 Climaticconditions 1.000 .851 Drivers of culturalhistoricalamenities 1.000 .806 Quality of accomodation 1.000 .875 Quality of Infrastructure 1.000 .860 Conditions of thelocaltraffic 1.000 .861 Possibility of localtransp. Services 1.000 .904 Theoffer of localcuisine 1.000 .893 Possibilities of shopping 1.000 .856 Friendliness of localpeople 1.000 .832 Nightlifeand Entertainment 1.000 .842 Availability of RecreationalActivities 1.000 .876 Offer of culturalandotherevents 1.000 .898

ExtractionMethod: Principal Component Analysis.

Component

InitialEigenvalues ExtractionSums of SquaredLoadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 13.054 87.029 87.029 13.054 87.029 87.029 2 .448 2.987 90.016 3 .386 2.576 92.593 4 .291 1.943 94.536 5 .178 1.184 95.720 6 .154 1.029 96.749 7 .136 .908 97.657 8 .082 .546 98.204 9 .065 .431 98.635

10 .053 .351 98.985 11 .048 .320 99.305 12 .039 .257 99.562 13 .029 .194 99.756 14 .020 .136 99.892 15 .016 .108 100.000


14


Figure 3. Scree Plot

Another factor analysis was conducted for the factor affecting Amasya City Center as

a tourist destination. The table below show the component matrix. The highest component

score was the score of “Accessibility to the destination” (Table 8).

Table 8 Component matrix

Component Matrixa

Component

1 Accessibility tothedestination .960 Cleanliness of thedestination .952 Possibility of localtransp. Services .951 Offer of culturalandotherevents .948 Theoffer of localcuisine .945 Availability of RecreationalActivities .936 Quality of accomodation .935 Safety in thedestination .934 Conditions of thelocaltraffic .928 Quality of Infrastructure .927 Possibilities of shopping .925 Climaticconditions .923 Nightlifeand Entertainment .918 Friendliness of localpeople .912 Drivers of culturalhistoricalamenities .898 ExtractionMethod: Principal Component Analysis.

According to the correlationmatrix, it is obvious that all factors are highly correlated

in terms of affecting Amasya citycenteras tourist destination since all the correlation

coefficients are above 0.3 (poorcorrelation) (Table 9).Accordingto KMO andBartlett’s Test,

it is clear that adequecy of sampling (0.927) is satisfactory for the analysis. Inaddition,

Significance level is below 0.05, which reflects that the data chosen for the analysis is

appropriate (Table 10).

15


Table 9. Correlation Matrix

Table 10. KMO & Bartlett’s Test for Amasya City Center Kaiser-Meyer-OlkinMeasure of SamplingAdequacy.

.926

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 2355.923

df 105

Sig. .000

Table 12 shows the total variance explained. According to this table, majority of the

variance is explained by component 1 (“Accessibility to destination”). All the remaining

components explain the variance relatively lower compared to the first component. This

might be interpreted that “Accessibility to destination” is more significant than the other

factors affecting Amasya city center as tourist destination.

16


Table 11. Communalities for Amasya City Center Initial Extraction Safety in thedestination 1.000 .902 Accessibility tothedestination 1.000 .914 Cleanliness of thedestination 1.000 .902 Climaticconditions 1.000 .841 Diversity of culturalhistoricalamenities 1.000 .744 Quality of accomodation 1.000 .864 Quality of Infrastructure 1.000 .865 Conditions of thelocaltraffic 1.000 .815 Possibility of localtransp. Services 1.000 .866 Theoffer of localcuisine 1.000 .892 Possibilities of shopping 1.000 .845 Friendliness of localpeople 1.000 .864 Nightlifeand Entertainment 1.000 .842 Availability of RecreationalActivities 1.000 .854 Offer of culturalandotherevents 1.000 .898


The scree plot shows that the first component is very significant in terms of its eigen

value. Since the secree plot gets an elbow shape after the first component, the remaining

components are relatively insignifcant when compared to the first component. If the eigen

value is above 1, this means that the majority of the data is explained by the component

which has an eigen value higher than 1. According to this, it is clear that component 1 has the

highest eigen value, which explains the variance most. This might be interpreted that

“Accessibility to destination” is the most important factor in explaining the variance. Table 12. Total Variance Explained for Amasya City Center

Component

InitialEigenvalues ExtractionSums of SquaredLoadings

Total % of

Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 12.910 86.065 86.065 12.910 86.065 86.065 2 .516 3.440 89.505 3 .407 2.714 92.218 4 .290 1.934 94.153 5 .231 1.542 95.695 6 .129 .863 96.558 7 .112 .748 97.305 8 .096 .639 97.944 9 .081 .539 98.484

10 .071 .475 98.958 11 .051 .340 99.298 12 .041 .271 99.570 13 .031 .206 99.776 14 .022 .143 99.919 15 .012 .081 100.000


17


Figure 4. Scree Plot for Amasya City Center

The analyses results show that the factors affecting both tourist destination and

choosing Amasya City Center as a tourist destination are quite comprehensive in our study.

6. Conclusion

It is clear that there are two factors when analysing tourist friendly destination

concept. The first one is supply side and the second one is demand side. Supply side is related

with governments, tourist agencies, hotels, restaurants and the amenities and the

characteristics of the destination itself. On the other hand, demand side is related with

cognitive images of the tourists about the destination.

Especially when concerning urban areas, it is expected that urban amenities, services

and urban infrastructure plays important role on destination choice of the tourists. On the

other hand, if cultural heritage is focus of the tourism visiting a different culture and

historical place becomes adequate for the tourist to achieve the aim of trip. There is no much

care about the quality and problems of the urban space. Anxiety and complains are more

about the touristic factors such as the condition of the hotels, language problems, accessibility

etc. If they come with a tour organization, also problems of accessibility and traffic seem to

be less important ones. Especially international tourists have not much care about the

development and urbanization level and urban problems of a city they have been visited. At

least, this is the condition for Amasya as it is gathered from the results of the field survey.

Historical and cultural diversity becomes the most important factor in urban tourism to define

a place as a tourist friendly destination.

The international tourists came to Amasya give importance to three aspects. Most

important one is the existence of historical and cultural assets and spaces. Second comes the

quality of accommodation. Third is the friendly and good humored environment. Despite the

negative aspects at the supply side and the natural problems of the urban areas such as traffic,

environmental pollution etc., the image of the city from the sight of tourists stay few nights

anywhere is not formed as negative about the urban area they have visited. If there is no

18


severe negative aspect like a natural disaster or an armed conflict; negative aspects of the

urban problems do not affect the international tourists if it is first visit to a destination. This

is the exact situation in Amasya. On the other hand, when tourists come more than once and

stay more than 2 or 3 days in city centre, their image about the city centre can be varied from

positive to negative due to urban and infrastructural problems.

Concerning Amasya city centre, in addition to historical and cultural values and

facilities of Amasya traditional Yaliboyu district has a great potential for international

tourists. Especially, serving as tourism area makes the district more attractive and tourists feel

themselves so relaxed in such an isolated historical area in a contemporary modern Anatolia

city that suffers from urban problems such as traffic, pollution, bad smell, unplanned

urbanization.

Amasyais thought to be a touristic city. Despite its cultural and historical

characteristics, Amasya seems as an only point of daily trips of various touristic tours. On the

other hand, as tourism facility takes place in an urban area, it is compulsory to ask questions

about the problems they observe in a limited time. Their observations are valuable because it

takes place in a limited time and the bias can be eliminated as they evaluate as a third party

side.

7. Further Discussion

The limited search on the supply side of the concept is one of the important

limitations of the study. Because all structural problems of the urban area can has to be

analyzed in terms of being tourist friendly destination. However in this study the supply side

is taken only about the condition of accommodation facilities. Research which are focusing

on “tourist friendly destination” concept, will probably increase in near future.

The further research can be focus on the concept of tourist friendly city especially valid for

urban tourism. Main problem is how to define cities as a “tourist friendly city”. Entrance of

it as a new discussion seems to be inevitable to enter to the literature related with urban

tourism. On the other hand, this is not a totally new concept but especially depends on the

factors and dynamics of tourist friendly destination concept. Mostly it needs a deep analysis

of urban spaces and urban problems by the sight of tourism. Tourist friendly city concept has

a potential to be an intersection of urban planning and tourism disciplines.

19


References:

AbdJalil, A.Q, Azdel, A.A.; Basri, F.I, Mustapha, M.I, (2013). Langkawi Island as a tourist

friendly destination, 1st International Hospitality and Tourism Postgraduate Conference,

Sep 02-03, 2013, Shah Alam, Malaysia.

Amasya University Project Group (2011). Age Friendly City Amasya, Project Report of

Amasya University supported by T.R. Ministry of Development and Middle Black Sea

Development Agency .

Anoymnous (2012). International tourism receipts surpass US$ 1 trillion in 2011 (2012, 7

May). The United Nations World Tourism Organization Press release. Retrieved from:

http://media.unwto.org/en/press-release/2012-05-07/international-tourism-receipts-

surpass-us-1-trillion-2011(October 6, 2016)

Anonymous. (2013). Tourism Statistics 2013. Turkish Institute of Statistics.

Retrieved from:http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1059(October 6, 2016)

Anuar A.N.A, Ahmad H., Jusoh H., Hussein M.Y. (2012a). The Roles of Tourism System

TowardsDevelopment of Tourist Friendly Destination Concept, Asian Social Science,

Vol.8, No.6, p:146-155.

Anuar A.N.A, Ahmad H., Jusoh H., Hussein M.Y. (2012b). Understanding the Factors

Influencing Formation of Tourist Friendly Destination Concept, Journal of Management

and Sustainability, Vol.2, No.1, p:106-114.

Anuar, A.N.A, Ahmad, H, Jusoh, H, Hussain, M.Y. (2012c). Tourist friendly destination

concept: Analysis in macro level perspectives, International Hospitality and Tourism

Conference (IHTC), SEP 03-05, 2012, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Baker D.A., CromptonJ.L. (2000).Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions, Annals of

Tourism Research, Vol.27, No.3, p:785-804.

Beerli M., Martin J.D. (2004). Factors Influencing Destination Image, Annals of Tourism

Research, Vol.31, No.3, p:657-681.

Bennett, P, (1998). Tourist-friendly (Design-Workshop in Denver uses its consensus-building

skills to help towns implement community-design strategies). Landscape Architecture,

Volume: 88 Issue: 2.

Dore L., Crouch G. (2002). Promoting Destinations: An Explanatory Study of Publicity

Programs Used by National tourism Organizations, Journal of Vacation Marketing,

Vol.9, No.2, p:137-152.

20


Luttenberger, L.R, (2013). Envıronmentally and Tourısm-Friendly Urban Planning Model -

The Case of Croatia, 2nd International Scientific Conference on Tourism in Southern

and Eastern Europe: Crisis - a Challenge of Sustainable Tourism Development?,May

15-18, 2013, Opatija, Croatia.

Ritchie J.R. B., Crouch G. I. (2000). The Competetive Destination: A Sustainability

Perspective, Tourism Management, No.21, p:1-7.

Ruetsche J. (2006). Urban Tourism: What Attracts Visitors to Cities, Let’s Talk Business,

Issue 117, http://www.slideshare.net/patowieden/judith-ruetsche-urban-tourism-

university-of-wisconsin-extension (September 14, 2015)

Menc, H. (2000). Tarih Boyunca Amasya [Amasya: Throughout History]. First Edition, Net

Ofset Publishing, Ankara, Turkey.

Tosun C., Bilim Y. (2004). Şehirlerin Turistik Açıdan Pazarlanması: Hatay Örneği, Anatolia:

Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol:15, No:2, pp:125-138.

Turfed Tourism Report (2017). Edited by Turkish Hotel Federation and prepared by Akdeniz

University, Faculty of Tourism.

Vangesayi S. (2003). A Conceptual Model of Tourism Destination Competetiveness and

Attractiveness, ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings, Adelaide 1-3

December2003http://www.anzmac.org/conference_archive/2003/papers/CON20_venge

sayis.pdf (September 13, 2015)

Analysis and Evaluation of Amasya City Centre as a Tourist...

Documents

Transcript of Analysis and Evaluation of Amasya City Centre as a Tourist...